I have, in the past, requested a card sent directly to a DX station and
received a blank card as well as confirmation for the QSO(s) I made. This
is almost an invitation from the DX to write my own confirmation for some
band that I needed. Fortunately, as you noted, these are usually not
extremely rare locations. I just throw them out.
The only other fairly easy cheat would be to change "18 MHz" to "1.8 MHz"
but that would probably be easy for a card checker to spot, since it's not
likely that the two bands would be open at the same time. 160 is mainly a
nighttime band and 17 is mainly a daytime band. I suppose if the QSO
happened to occur at the grayline time period it might be overlooked.
73, Zack W9SZ
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:17 AM, Dick Green WC1M <wc1m73@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not as easy to cheat in DXCC as you think. You might be able to get
> away with a faked QSL or two with non-rare countries, which is pretty
> meaningless, but it's very difficult to cheat on a semi-rare or rare
> country. But do prove me wrong: let's hear some of the many ways you can
> cheat. I'm not talking about cheating at the DX end, like Don Miller or
> Romeo, which is supremely difficult to do and very uncommon, but cheating
> that would result in awards that are not deserverd.
>
> And just because it may be possible for some minor cheating to occur, that
> doesn't mean we should leave the door wide open. I don't see the logic in
> that. If QSLs submitted to LoTW were not authenticated, it would be
> possible
> to completely corrupt the DXCC program, making a mockery of it. If you're
> interested in how that might occur, read the threat analysis in the
> original
> LoTW specifications:
>
> http://www.eqsl.cc/qslcard/LOTWSpec.pdf
>
> Yes, the security is strong, which requires a slight inconvenience and
> delay
> when you sign up, and running a program on your log when you use it, but I
> feel the security of this venerable program is well worth the trouble.
>
> 73, Dick WC1M
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Gilbert [mailto:xdavid@cis-broadband.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 6:06 PM
> > To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] authentication for log submission
> >
> >
> > I've always thought that such an extreme level of security for LoTW was
> > wildly inappropriate given the numerous ways that people can and do
> > cheat in DXCC. It's like installing a bombproof door on the entrance to
> > a tar paper shanty, and the day that sort of thing shows up in
> > contesting is the day I no longer bother to contest. I can manage my
> > online IRA more simply than I can a hobby ... where's the sense in that?
> >
> > Besides, I've yet to hear of a single case of anyone actually being able
> > to alter someone else's log submission, so at this point incorporating
> > LoTW authentication for contest logs sounds to me like setting up a
> > Howitzer to kill a unicorn in case one should ever show up.
> >
> > Dave AB7E
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6/5/2012 10:40 AM, Dick Green WC1M wrote:
> > > Don, you are a man after my own heart! I'm totally paranoid about
> > > security scenarios, which is one reason LoTW security is so tight.
> > (snip)
> > > So, I don't think it would work. However, if there is a scenario that
> > > would work, the best solution would be to use the LoTW authentication
> > > system for log submissions. That would have the dual advantage of
> > > verifying the call sign in the log and allowing automatic submission
> > > of the log to the LoTW QSL system (something many have asked for.)
> > >
> > > 73, Dick WC1M
> > >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|